I presented an American Civil War game in early March, tossing in an innovation or two... trying to see what works and what doesn't. Here's a listing of the problem areas.
Item 1. The Scenario.
The latest issue of THE COURIER had arrived about a week or so before (Winter 1993) ; it contained a scenario by Paul Koch for ON TO RICHMOND. Paul's setting was that of a Union retreat, with the Northerners entering the field first and running upfield, trying to get across an unfordable river at the far end of the table. Two bridges were available, and the Union force was issued a pontoon train, thus making possible a third way across the river.
According to the Koch doctrine, the pursuing Southern forces were to enter the field around Turn 10 or 11, giving the Union what I thought would be too much of a head start. It appeared to me that there was no need to waste the first 10 turns or so, solely moving the Union troops toward the river, while the Rebel commanders stood around and twiddled their thumbs. In the interests of hurrying the game along, therefore, the Union units were initially set in the center of the table.
We used Bob Hurst's 6-foot-wide table, and thus the Union had about a 3-foot start on the Confederates. Then, because it looked like the Southerners would still catch up too quickly despite the 3-foot distance, the Union was given another free move prior to the entrance of the pursuing Rebels.
Alas! I overcompensated. Some five minutes after we started, by the third turn of the game, there WAS no game! The Bluebellies simply zipped up the roads and across the field much more rapidly than I had anticipated and ZIPPO!, were off and gone. Only the Confederates were left on the table.
The Northerners moved an average of 12 inches per turn, and received yet another movement bonus (a roll of a 10-sided die) if they stayed on the roads. In retrospect, it didn't take too many 12-inch moves to cover the 3-foot distance to the table edge!
At this point, I was rather shamefaced, muttering excuses, trying to avoid the nasty looks of those table-side, when I was saved from utter oblivion by Jack Culberson, who said: "I've got a great idea. Why don't we fight a battle?"
Yes! A superb thought! A battle! What a wonderful idea! Let's forget about Northerners fleeing and Southerners pursuing and rearguards and pontoon bridge building... let's play a simple wargame!
And we did.
Item 2. The Pontoon Bridge
Each unit on each side, during the movement phase each bound, was given a number of actions, either 3, 4 or 5. Each action permitted an infantry unit to move 3 inches, hence infantry movement distance ranged from 9 to 15 inches (plus road bonuses).
The pontoon bridge building unit, once it reached the river, was permitted to roll a 10-sided die thereafter for every action it devoted to its bridge building effort. A record of the point total was kept, and when the total reached 50 points, the bridge was complete and ready for use.
The engineering unit flew across the field to the river, started tossing its "building dice", and PRESTO! the bridge was set up in world-record time. Bill Rankin, in charge of the Pontooniers, indicated that in all his dice tossing efforts, he had thrown a "2" once and that all his other throws were high numbers.
There was a provision for bridge destruction, but so rapidly did the game come to an end, that it was never put to use. Here, if artillery fired at the bridge and scored a hit, two 10-sided dice would be thrown, and the sum of the dice would be deducted from the point total already accumulated for the bridge.
We never found out if this worked, since by the time the Confederate artillery arrived to set up shop, the Union forces were long since gone.
Item 3. The Sequence
The sequence was derived from an input from Gary Haggarty, whose thoughts I published several issues ago. I changed Gary's input quite a bit, and in so doing came up with a sequence I like, but which, in truth, isn't quite applicable to the ACW era.
At the start of each bound, each side was dealt 4 cards from what I termed the Sequence Deck (SD). There were 20 cards in the SD, and they were numbered 1 through 20. Each card also was annotated with the number of actions (3,4 or 5) permitted a side.
On the first phase of the bound, each side played a card, and the high number was permitted to move first, or to direct the opposition to move first. This phase, therefore, was a "bidding phase" which concerned only movement.
After the designated side moved all its units, the low side would move.
The second phase of the bound was also a bidding phase, a fire phase. Again each of the sides played a card, and the high numbered side would fire first. When it was through, and all targeted units on the low numbered side had taken a morale test, the low numbered side would fire.
The third phase was a melee phase... here, both sides selected units to close to contact, and the combat resolved.
The fourth phase was the final bidding phase. Each side, having played 2 of its cards (one for the movement phase, one for fire), had two cards left. One of the two was now played, and high number won. This phase was a bonus phase, for the loser, i.e., the lower number, got to do nothing. The winner of this third phase bid could either move or fire an entire brigade.
Note that each side uses three of four cards each turn, thus having to make a series of tactical decisions concerning its priorities during the bound; whether movement or firing or a bonus action is most important.
As a playable sequence, it worked well; I noted many a staff meeting on both sides of the table to consider the ordering of priorities during the bound.
The problem, however, is that this is supposedly a horse-and-musket era game, in which weapon loading procedures take an appreciable amount of time. Thus an advancing force, one on the offensive, should have less opportunity to load and fire than a static force on the defense.
By separating movement and firing phases, as described above, each is independent of the other, and the offense and the defense get essentially the same opportunities to fire.
I note that several sets of rules have this built-in problem. FIRE AND FURY, for example, has distinct movement and firing phases, hence both sides, regardless of the time-per-bound they take to move, have the same opportunity to fire.
A better method than the one used in our game, one which will be tested in the future, is to have the first two bidding phases devoted to either fire or movement, as the sides desire. Thus a force wanting to advance upfield will devote the major portion of its actions toward moving, while the defender will be able to blaze away.
Item 4. The Flying Artillery
Here, the focus was on the issue of how fast guns, i.e., batteries, can move. I set the game up to have infantry move 3 inches per action, and my thought was that unlimbered batteries should be able to keep up with advancing foot soldiers. My thought was that the infantry weren't really rushing down the field all the time; they were advancing slowly, with (as the history books would have it) stately tread, keeping their line intact, their formation unbroken, etc. Surely a gun crew could keep pushing its weapon along at the same rate? Surely?
My reasoning was rejected by those present. Brian Dewitt kept referring to his artillery battery as his "tank crew" each time he moved the unit up field.
In part, I think the dissatisfaction arose because of the separate firing and movement phases. If the sides had had to choose which actions to devote to either moving or firing, the battery movement issue probably wouldn't have arisen.
Item 5. The Combat Radius
In an alternate movement system, the side that moves just prior to the melee phase has an advantage in that it has the opportunity to gang up on the opposition, to attack an enemy unit with more than one of its own units.
I've played with several systems that take away this advantage. In the melee phase itself, I have instituted a separate "march phase", permitting both side to reinforce the units already in combat. In this game, I used what I term the "combat radius system". Here, the active side moves just one unit into contact. Then it dices for the "combat radius" (CR), a distance of either zero, or 6 or 9 inches.
The reference point for the measurement of the CR is the center of the line of contact between the two engaged units. Any units within the circle described by the CR are automatically scooped into the melee. If the CR is zero, then only the two units themselves are engaged. If the CR is 9 inches, there may be many, many units involved.
All this is, of course, is a ploy to ascertain, and total, relative combat points involved in a melee. Some rules, which look solely at units in direct contact, may give an engaged unit a "+1" for "support" if a friendly unit is located "nearby". This essentially does the same thing as the CR system. The CR system simply provides a mechanical rule to be applied to the melee procedure.
In our game, the CR system was greeted with moans and groans by Sam Hepford, whose dismounted Union cavalry unit found itself within a 9 inch CR when one of Fred Haub's Southern regiments contacted one of Bob Hurst's Northern units.
Fred was concentrating solely against the Hurstmen; he moved one unit into contact, tossed the dice to determine the combat radius, and discovered that the CR of 9 inches allowed him to include in his melee point total, not only his lead regiment, but the two other regiments on his brigade.
In similar fashion, Bob Hurst, who had moved up regiments quite close to his front line should this very effect occur, was permitted to include lottsa units, and one of these turned out to be the Hepford cavalry regiment.
"But my guys aren't even facing the melee; they don't even know a melee exists!" was the gist of Sam's moans and groans. Despite Sam's outcries, his unit participated in the combat. And then it was that he delivered the final and lowest blow of them all; "These rules are not historically realistic!" he said.
Back to PW Review March 1994 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1994 Wally Simon
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com